We propose using the technique of weighted citation to measure an article's prestige. The technique allocates a different weight to each reference by taking into account the impact of citing journals and citation time intervals. Weighted citation captures prestige, whereas citation counts capture popularity. We compare the value variances for popularity and prestige for articles published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology from 1998 to 2007, and find that the majority have comparable status.
This paper aims to identify whether different weighted PageRank algorithms can be applied to author citation networks to measure the popularity and prestige of a scholar from a citation perspective. Information Retrieval (IR) was selected as a test field and data from 1956-2008 were collected from Web of Science (WOS). Weighted PageRank with citation and publication as weighted vectors were calculated on author citation networks. The results indicate that both popularity rank and prestige rank were highly correlated with the weighted PageRank. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted t…
Citation analysis does not generally take the quality of citations into account: all citations are weighted equally irrespective of source. However, a scholar may be highly cited but not highly regarded: popularity and prestige are not identical measures of esteem. In this study we define popularity as the number of times an author is cited and prestige as the number of times an author is cited by highly cited papers. Information Retrieval (IR) is the test field. We compare the 40 leading researchers in terms of their popularity and prestige over time. Some authors are ranked high on prestige …
A new size-independent indicator of scientific journal prestige, the SJR2 indicator, is proposed. This indicator takes into account not only the prestige of the citing scientific journal but also its closeness to the cited journal using the cosine of the angle between the vectors of the two journals' cocitation profiles. To eliminate the size effect, the accumulated prestige is divided by the fraction of the journal's citable documents, thus eliminating the decreasing tendency of this type of indicator and giving meaning to the scores. Its method of computation is described, and the results of…
The number of citations is a widely used metric to evaluate the scientific credit of papers, scientists and journals. However, it does happen that a paper with fewer citations from prestigious scientists is of higher influence than papers with more citations. In this paper, we argue that from whom the paper is being cited is of higher significance than merely the number of received citations. Accordingly, we propose an interactive model on author-paper bipartite networks as well as an iterative algorithm to get better rankings for scientists and their publications. The main advantage of this m…
Citation proximus: the role of social and semantic ties in citing behaviour
École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’information, Université de Montréal（蒙特利尔大学图书馆与信息科学学院）；Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University（奥胡斯大学丹麦研究与研究政策中心）；Consortium Érudit（Érudit联盟）；Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie, Université du Québec à Montréal（魁北克大学蒙特利尔分校跨大学科研与科技研究中心科技观测站）；Department of Science and Innovation-National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, Stellenbosch University（斯坦陵布什大学科学与创新系-国家研究基金会科学计量学与科学技术创新政策卓越中心）
We performed a citation analysis on the Web of Science publications consisting of more than 63 million articles and 1.45 billion citations on 254 subjects from 1981 to 2020. We proposed the Article's Scientific Prestige (ASP) metric and compared this metric to number of citations (#Cit) and journal grade in measuring the scientific impact of individual articles in the large-scale hierarchical and multi-disciplined citation network. In contrast to #Cit, ASP, that is computed based on the eigenvector centrality, considers both direct and indirect citations, and provides steady-state evaluation c…
This study examines a range of factors associating with future citation and altmetric counts to a paper. The factors include journal impact factor, individual collaboration, international collaboration, institution prestige, country prestige, research funding, abstract readability, abstract length, title length, number of cited references, field size, and field type and will be modelled in association with citation counts, Mendeley readers, Twitter posts, Facebook posts, blog posts, and news posts. The results demonstrate that eight factors are important for increased citation counts, seven di…
This paper proposes an indicator of journals' scientific prestige, the SJR indicator, for ranking scholarly journals based on citation weighting schemes and eigenvector centrality to be used in complex and heterogeneous citation networks such Scopus. Its computation methodology is described and the results after implementing the indicator over Scopus 2007 dataset are compared to an ad-hoc Journal Impact Factor both generally and inside specific scientific areas. The results showed that SJR indicator and JIF distributions fitted well to a power law distribution and that both metrics were strong…
The status of an actor in a social context is commonly defined in terms of two factors: the total number of endorsements the actor receives from other actors and the prestige of the endorsing actors. These two factors indicate the distinction between popularity and expert appreciation of the actor, respectively. We refer to the former as popularity and to the latter as prestige. These notions of popularity and prestige also apply to the domain of scholarly assessment. The ISI Impact Factor (ISI IF) is defined as the mean number of citations a journal receives over a 2 year period. By merely co…
Citation impact indicators nowadays play an important role in research evaluation, and consequently these indicators have received a lot of attention in the bibliometric and scientometric literature. This paper provides an in-depth review of the literature on citation impact indicators. First, an overview is given of the literature on bibliographic databases that can be used to calculate citation impact indicators (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar). Next, selected topics in the literature on citation impact indicators are reviewed in detail. The first topic is the selection of public…
Hutchins, Yuan, M., and Santangelo (2015) proposed the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) as a new field-normalized impact indicator. This study investigates the RCR by correlating it on the level of single publications with established field-normalized indicators and assessments of the publications by peers. We find that the RCR correlates highly with established field-normalized indicators, but the correlation between RCR and peer assessments is only low to medium.
It is important to measure the disruption of academic papers. According to the characteristics of three different kinds of citations, this paper borrows musical vocabulary and names them solo citations (SC), duet citations (DC), and prelude citations (PC) respectively. Studying how to measure the disruption of a published work effectively, this study analyzes nine indicators and suggests a general evaluation formula. Seven of the nine indicators are innovations introduced by this paper: SC, SC-DC, SC-PC, SC-DC-PC, (SC-DC)/(SC+DC), (SC-PC)/(SC+DC), and (SC-DC-PC)/(SC+DC), as is the general form…
Two commonly used ideas in the development of citation-based research performance indicators are the idea of normalizing citation counts based on a field classification scheme and the idea of recursive citation weighing (like in PageRank-inspired indicators). We combine these two ideas in a single indicator, referred to as the recursive mean normalized citation score indicator, and we study the validity of this indicator. Our empirical analysis shows that the proposed indicator is highly sensitive to the field classification scheme that is used. The indicator also has a strong tendency to rein…
An extensive analysis of the presence of different altmetric indicators provided by Altmetric.com across scientific fields is presented, particularly focusing on their relationship with citations. Our results confirm that the presence and density of social media altmetric counts are still very low and not very frequent among scientific publications, with 15%-24% of the publications presenting some altmetric activity and concentrating in the most recent publications, although their presence is increasing over time. Publications from the social sciences, humanities and the medical and life scien…
Most publication and citation indicators are based on datasets with multi-authored publications and thus a change in counting method will often change the value of an indicator. Therefore it is important to know why a specific counting method has been applied. I have identified arguments for counting methods in a sample of 32 bibliometric studies published in 2016 and compared the result with discussions of arguments for counting methods in three older studies. Based on the underlying logics of the arguments I have arranged the arguments in four groups. Group 1 focuses on arguments related to …
The objective assessment of the prestige of an academic institution is a difficult and hotly debated task. In the last few years, different types of University Rankings have been proposed to quantify the excellence of different research institutions in the world. Albeit met with criticism in some cases, the relevance of university rankings is being increasingly acknowledged: indeed, rankings are having a major impact on the design of research policies, both at the institutional and governmental level. Yet, the debate on what rankings are {\em exactly} measuring is enduring. Here, we address th…
We argue that citation is a composed indicator: short-term citations can be considered as currency at the research front, whereas long-term citations can contribute to the codification of knowledge claims into concept symbols. Knowledge claims at the research front are more likely to be transitory and are therefore problematic as indicators of quality. Citation impact studies focus on short-term citation, and therefore tend to measure not epistemic quality, but involvement in current discourses in which contributions are positioned by referencing. We explore this argument using three case stud…
Two indicators rule them all: Mean and standard deviation used to calculate other journal indicators based on log-normal distribution of citation counts
More than five years after their emergence, altmetrics are still seen as a promise to complement traditional citation-based indicators. However, no study has focused on their potential usefulness to capture the impact of scholarly books. While recent literature shows that citation indicators cannot fully capture the impact of books, other studies have suggested alternative indicators such as usage, publishers' prestige or library holdings. In this paper, we calculate 18 indicators which range from altmetrics to library holdings, views, downloads or citations to the production of monographs of …
Following discussions in 2010 and 2011, scientometric evaluators have increasingly abandoned relative indicators in favor of comparing observed with expected citation ratios. The latter method provides parameters with error values allowing for the statistical testing of differences in citation scores. A further step would be to proceed to non-parametric statistics (e.g., the top-10%) given the extreme skewness (non-normality) of the citation distributions. In response to a plea for returning to relative indicators in the previous issue of this newsletter, we argue in favor of further progress …
Whether a scientific paper is cited is related not only to the influence of its author(s) but also to the journal publishing it. Scientists, either proficient or tender, usually submit their most important work to prestigious journals which receives higher citations than the ordinary. How to model the role of scientific journals in citation dynamics is of great importance. In this paper we address this issue through two folds. One is the intrinsic heterogeneity of a paper determined by the impact factor of the journal publishing it. The other is the mechanism of a paper being cited which depen…
A concern has been raised that "covidization" of research would cause an overemphasizes on covid-19 and pandemics at the expense of other research. The rapid growth of publications related to the Covid-19 pandemic renders a vast amount of citations from this literature. This growth may affect bibliometric indicators. In this paper I explored how the growth of covid-19 publications influences bibliometric indicators commonly used in university rankings, research evaluation and research allocation, namely the field normalized citation score and the journal impact factor. I found that the burst o…
The h-index, introduced by Hirsch, is based on the mutual variation between the number of cited and source items. The temporally continuous nature of the citation accretion process causes a shift of cited items from the h-core zone to the adjacent citation-asymmetric zones, viz. h-excess zone, or h-tail zone. The name given to this shifting phenomenon is the Diffusion of Cited Items (DCI). In this paper, two new variables are introduced, i.e., the Fold of Excess citation over Total citations (FET), denoted by $ε^2$ and the Fold of h-core citation over Excess citations (FHE), denoted by $θ^2$. …
We address the question how citation-based bibliometric indicators can best be normalized to ensure fair comparisons between publications from different scientific fields and different years. In a systematic large-scale empirical analysis, we compare a traditional normalization approach based on a field classification system with three source normalization approaches. We pay special attention to the selection of the publications included in the analysis. Publications in national scientific journals, popular scientific magazines, and trade magazines are not included. Unlike earlier studies, we …
The two most used citation impact indicators in the assessment of scientific journals are, nowadays, the impact factor and the h-index. However, both indicators are not field normalized (vary heavily depending on the scientific category) which makes them incomparable between categories. Furthermore, the impact factor is not robust to the presence of articles with a large number of citations, while the h-index depends on the journal size. These limitations are very important when comparing journals of different sizes and categories. An alternative citation impact indicator is the percentage of …
In the final analysis citation-based indicators are inferior to effective peer review and even peer review is flawed. It is impossible to accurately measure the value or impact of scientific research and a key task of scientometricians should be to produce figures for policy makers and others that are as informative as it is practical to make them and to ensure that users are fully aware of their limitations. Although the Abramo and D'Angelo (2016) suggestions make a lot of theoretical sense and so are a goal that is worth aiming for, it is unrealistic in practice to advocate their universal u…
Ramanujacharyulu's (1964) Power-Weakness Ratio (PWR) measures impact by recursively multiplying the citation matrix by itself until convergence is reached in both the cited and citing dimensions; the quotient of these values is defined as PWR, whereby "cited" is considered as power and "citing" as weakness. Analytically, PWR is an attractive candidate for measuring journal impact because of its symmetrical handling of the rows and columns in the asymmetrical citation matrix, its recursive algorithm, and its mathematical elegance. In this study, PWR is discussed and critically assessed in relat…
Empirical evidence shows that co-authored publications achieve higher visibility and impact. The aim of the current work is to test for the existence of a similar correlation for Italian publications. We also verify if such correlation differs: i) by subject category and macro-area; ii) by document type; iii) over the course of time. The results confirm world-level evidence, showing a consistent and significant linear growth in the citability of a publication with number of co-authors, in almost all subject categories. The effects are more remarkable in the fields of Social Sciences and Art & …
National research impact indicators derived from citation counts are used by governments to help assess their national research performance and to identify the effect of funding or policy changes. Citation counts lag research by several years, however, and so their information is somewhat out of date. Some of this lag can be avoided by using readership counts from the social reference sharing site Mendeley because these accumulate more quickly than citations. This article introduces a method to calculate national research impact indicators from Mendeley, using citation counts from older time p…
Colombian scientific journals are poorly represented in international digital libraries; however, through Google Scholar (GS) it is possible to determine their use by the community. Between the years of 2003 and 2007 a classification of 185 Colombian journals indexed in the Colombian National Bibliographical Index (IBNP) was performed using the information provided by GS, basing categorization on size indicators, indexation and citation. The indicators were analyzed by grouping the journals in two general areas: sciences and social sciences. In each area, the indicators provided by the digital…
Different scientific fields have different citation practices. Citation-based bibliometric indicators need to normalize for such differences between fields in order to allow for meaningful between-field comparisons of citation impact. Traditionally, normalization for field differences has usually been done based on a field classification system. In this approach, each publication belongs to one or more fields and the citation impact of a publication is calculated relative to the other publications in the same field. Recently, the idea of source normalization was introduced, which offers an alt…
In this paper, a new field-normalized indicator is introduced, which is rooted in early insights in bibliometrics, and is compared with several established field-normalized indicators (e.g. the mean normalized citation score, MNCS, and indicators based on percentile approaches). Garfield (1979) emphasizes that bare citation counts from different fields cannot be compared for evaluative purposes, because the "citation potential" can vary significantly between the fields. Garfield (1979) suggests that "the most accurate measure of citation potential is the average number of references per paper …
Bibliometric studies often rely on field-normalized citation impact indicators in order to make comparisons between scientific fields. We discuss the connection between field normalization and the choice of a counting method for handling publications with multiple co-authors. Our focus is on the choice between full counting and fractional counting. Based on an extensive theoretical and empirical analysis, we argue that properly field-normalized results cannot be obtained when full counting is used. Fractional counting does provide results that are properly field normalized. We therefore recomm…
The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is linearly sensitive to self-citations because each self-citation adds to the numerator, whereas the denominator is not affected. Pinski & Narin (1976) derived the Influence Weight (IW) as an alternative to Garfield's JIF. Whereas the JIF is based on raw citation counts normalized by the number of publications, IWs are based on the eigenvectors in the matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations without a reference to size: the cited and citing sides are combined by a matrix approach. IWs emerge as a vector after recursive iteration of the normalized matrix. …
Bibliometricians have long recurred to citation counts to measure the impact of publications on the advancement of science. However, since the earliest days of the field, some scholars have questioned whether all citations should be worth the same, and have gone on to weight them by a variety of factors. However sophisticated the operationalization of the measures, the methodologies used in weighting citations still present limits in their underlying assumptions. This work takes an alternative approach to resolving the underlying problem: the proposal is to value citations by the impact of the…
Metrics based on percentile ranks (PRs) for measuring scholarly impact involves complex treatment because of various defects such as overvaluing or devaluing an object caused by percentile ranking schemes, ignoring precise citation variation among those ranked next to each other, and inconsistency caused by additional papers or citations. These defects are especially obvious in a small-sized dataset. To avoid the complicated treatment of PRs based metrics, we propose two new indicators - the citation-based indicator (CBI) and the combined impact indicator (CII). Document types of publications …
Citation numbers are extensively used for assessing the quality of scientific research. The use of raw citation counts is generally misleading, especially when applied to cross-disciplinary comparisons, since the average number of citations received is strongly dependent on the scientific discipline of reference of the paper. Measuring and eliminating biases in citation patterns is crucial for a fair use of citation numbers. Several numerical indicators have been introduced with this aim, but so far a specific statistical test for estimating the fairness of these numerical indicators has not b…
Most Performance-based Research Funding Systems (PRFS) draw on peer review and bibliometric indicators, two different methodologies which are sometimes combined. A common argument against the use of indicators in such research evaluation exercises is their low correlation at the article level with peer review judgments. In this study, we analyse 191,000 papers from 154 higher education institutes which were peer reviewed in a national research evaluation exercise. We combine these data with 6.95 million citations to the original papers. We show that when citation-based indicators are applied a…
A citation-based indicator for interdisciplinarity has been missing hitherto among the set of available journal indicators. In this study, we investigate network indicators (betweenness centrality), journal indicators (Shannon entropy, the Gini coefficient), and more recently proposed Rao-Stirling measures for "interdisciplinarity." The latter index combines the statistics of both citation distributions of journals (vector-based) and distances in citation networks among journals (matrix-based). The effects of various normalizations are specified and measured using the matrix of 8,207 journals …
Can change in citation patterns among journals be used as an indicator of structural change in the organization of the sciences? Aggregated journal-journal citations for 1999 are compared with similar data in the Journal Citation Reports 1998 of the Science Citation Index. In addition to indicating local change, probabilistic entropy measures enable us to analyze changes in distributions at different levels of aggregation. The results of various statistics are discussed and compared by elaborating the journal-journal mappings. The relevance of this indicator for science and technology policies…
Usage of field-normalized citation scores is a bibliometric standard. Different methods for field-normalization are in use, but also the choice of field-classification system determines the resulting field-normalized citation scores. Using Web of Science data, we calculated field-normalized citation scores using the same formula but different field-classification systems to answer the question if the resulting scores are different or similar. Six field-classification systems were used: three based on citation relations, one on semantic similarity scores (i.e., a topical relatedness measure), o…
What is the value of a scientist and its impact upon the scientific thinking? How can we measure the prestige of a journal or of a conference? The evaluation of the scientific work of a scientist and the estimation of the quality of a journal or conference has long attracted significant interest, due to the benefits from obtaining an unbiased and fair criterion. Although it appears to be simple, defining a quality metric is not an easy task. To overcome the disadvantages of the present metrics used for ranking scientists and journals, J.E. Hirsch proposed a pioneering metric, the now famous h-…
Evaluating the quality of academic journal is becoming increasing important within the context of research performance evaluation. Traditionally, journals have been ranked by peer review lists such as that of the Association of Business Schools (UK) or though their journal impact factor (JIF). However, several new indicators have been developed, such as the h-index, SJR, SNIP and the Eigenfactor which take into account different factors and therefore have their own particular biases. In this paper we evaluate these metrics both theoretically and also through an empirical study of a large set o…
